Is Lewis insensitive?

[SweetWaters]

I’ve just been re-reading VDT, and I’ve noticed this time around that Lewis seems to be criticising a lot of things (in the characters of Eustace and his parents) that aren’t necessarily bad things.

In the very first page, for example.

“They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were vegetarians, non-smokers and teetotalers and wore a special kind of underclothes. In their house there was very little furniture and very few clothes on beds and the windows were always open.”

Now I don’t know about the whole “special kind of underclothes” thing, but I’m willing to bet there are a few people on this forum who are non-smokers and teetotalers (teetotalers = not drinking alcohol). Is Lewis simply bashing all “new ideas”? Might this be offensive to people who, for example, believe that drinking alcohol is a sin? And what about in SC, where he seems to be making fun of co-ed schools? What do you think his point was?

(Oh dear – I can just see Copperfox having a field day with this one. :rolleyes:)

[Mozart the Meerkitten]

I’ve just been re-reading VDT, and I’ve noticed this time around that Lewis seems to be criticising a lot of things (in the characters of Eustace and his parents) that aren’t necessarily bad things.

In the very first page, for example.

“They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were vegetarians, non-smokers and teetotalers and wore a special kind of underclothes. In their house there was very little furniture and very few clothes on beds and the windows were always open.”

Now I don’t know about the whole “special kind of underclothes” thing, but I’m willing to bet there are a few people on this forum who are non-smokers and teetotalers (teetotalers = not drinking alcohol). Is Lewis simply bashing all “new ideas”? Might this be offensive to people who, for example, believe that drinking alcohol is a sin? And what about in SC, where he seems to be making fun of co-ed schools? What do you think his point was?

(Oh dear – I can just see Copperfox having a field day with this one. :rolleyes:)

Ok in VODT Lewis is not critisising these things I found no evidence he said they were bad, he is only stating the enviorment of one of the children in the story.

In SC, there had to be a reason the two kids (Eustace and Jill) wanted to get out of school grounds. Other mean children ganging up on them was a perfect way to get the story going.

There is no evidince, I think, in the books that Lewis is putting these things down.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I think he was lampooning some of the intellectual faddishness of the day, particularly in university towns like Cambridge. (It may have been an inside dig - I believe at the time Treader was written, he was still teaching at Oxford, though he eventually ended up at Cambridge.) I don't think he was down on people who chose not to drink for whatever reason, but I do think he thought people who were always on the most recent fad in diets/clothing/supplements/whatever were just a bit silly. Also, based on the opening scenario in Silver Chair, they seemed to be into the most recent fads in education and childrearing, with the predictable outcome for Eustace.

I suspect that Eustace's parents were what Lewis referred to as "Clevers" in his book Pilgrim's Regress.

[Ephinie]

I think the criticism was not about what Eustace's parents were doing, but rather about the attitude behind it. That basically goes along with what PotW said, so I won't elaborate on that point.

However, on the matter of teetotalers... I believe that I remember reading (perhaps in Mere Christianity? could have been one of his others...) a very negative comment in regard to teetotalers, so I do believe he was against that. Let me clarify, however, that a teetotaler is more than a person who does not drink. It is a person who does not drink and insists that no one else may drink either - and any who do have some failing because of it. You can see, in that context, why Lewis would view such people in a negative light.

Keep in mind that Lewis was from England. The idea that drinking is a "sin" is a wholly and almost exclusively American idea. Christians in other countries don't grasp that concept because it is foreign to them. The reason Christians in the US believe drinking is sinful goes back to some interesting goings-on in our country in the 1800's and continuing through the Progressive Era. In a way, that is ironic, since there really isn't much Christian about the concept. But it is now so deeply ingrained into Christian culture in the US, that I doubt it will ever be any other way. The point is that Lewis, when writing, probably would not have considered that his statement could offend Christians who thought it sinful to drink - because Christians in his couldn't wouldn't have (and still don't).

[Into the Wardrobe]

I’ve just been re-reading VDT, and I’ve noticed this time around that Lewis seems to be criticising a lot of things (in the characters of Eustace and his parents) that aren’t necessarily bad things.

In the very first page, for example.

“They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were vegetarians, non-smokers and teetotalers and wore a special kind of underclothes. In their house there was very little furniture and very few clothes on beds and the windows were always open.”

Now I don’t know about the whole “special kind of underclothes” thing, but I’m willing to bet there are a few people on this forum who are non-smokers and teetotalers (teetotalers = not drinking alcohol). Is Lewis simply bashing all “new ideas”? Might this be offensive to people who, for example, believe that drinking alcohol is a sin? And what about in SC, where he seems to be making fun of co-ed schools? What do you think his point was?

(Oh dear – I can just see Copperfox having a field day with this one. :rolleyes:)

Well, if one reads Suprised by Joy, which is a sort of mini autobiography of a sort for Lewis they would understand where he came up with Experiment House and that he lived through schools that were much worse than most people imagine. He struggled with schools and much preferred his tutor or else teaching himself to being at a school. He might have had a bias against co-ed schools. It's harder for students to concentrate on their lessons when thinking about personal relationships in a co-ed situation. As a teacher this would have been a point of frustration in some ways. I come from a family of teachers and I've taught classes before. It is annoying when the potential in a student is obvious but the student doesn't fulfill it because they can't get their mind off of a classmate they have a crush on. Also, in England, many schools are still not co-ed to this day. They do exist, but many schools, especially boarding schools, are not co-ed.

I agree that he was sort of attacking the fads of the day. You know, the sort of things where people believe that you NEED to have the latest *fill in the blank with a product of some sort* and if you are not interested in it then you're not someone appropriate to be around. If there's one thing Jack hated, it was snobbery. He comes up with issues of his day to display it in these books.

As to alcohol, do keep in mind that Jesus' first listed miracle was that he turned water into wine at a wedding. Thus, drinking alcohol is not sinful. Drinking to excess where one loses control of their faculties is sinful, and causing others who have problems with drinking to stumble is sinful. Drinking alcohol itself is not. In my denomination it was required of people to give up alcohol completely for membership due to the above reasons, but they're taking that element out of the Discipline soon. I'm not a fan of alcohol and I don't drink it. I don't personally prefer it to be in my house. But if someone I'm with chooses to have a glass of wine or something at a dinner, I don't consider them a sinful person at all.

[~Lava~]

I agree with the three posts above. What I am about to say may sound like a completely off topic thing but I think it demonstrates Lewis's aversion to tee-totalers. At my school, we have two groups of vegans. We have the "rabid" ones who want to convince everyone to not eat any meat or animal by-products (also they don't mind making a stir about it); then we have the ones like my best friend who believe it is a personal choice and will not bug you about your choice to eat meat as long as you are not provocatively trying to stir up problems about hers. She absolutely dislikes the other type because they don't seem to have any regard for whether or not a person has reasons for what they eat. There are people at my school who will take any opportunity to try to impose their vegan will upon the rest of the school. They will sit there and argue with a group of wildlife students to try to turn them vegan. It turns people off; certainly did so for me. Tee-totalers are like the "rabid" vegans. They were the ones who would have been the first to turn a moon-shiner in during the Prohibition in America. They are the ones who rallied for Prohibition in the first place. In Europe, they do not always have the sanitation systems that clean their water and make it drinkable. Also, drinking beers and other liquors is an important part of their culture. Lewis was attacking something that was threatening his culture and that of his parents. He was not going after non-drinkers, he was going after tee-totalers; there is a difference.

[inkspot]

I don't think he was going after anyone. I think, as has been stated, he thought fads were silly and people who insisted on the most up-to-date and next-big-thing in their homes and child-rearing were silly, too. I don't think he meant anything about teatotalers except that to him the idea was silly.

[EveningStar]

He wasn't going after people who chose not to drink. He was going after people who choose for others not to drink. As in, "I can't believe you've fallen victim to the hidden dangers of wine coolers!!"

[Aravis_yanes]

Well I think Lewis just wanted to all the people who read his books to know better the kids, so we can understand their behavior better, and the reason they were that way...

[Aravis Kenobi]

Lewis? insensitive? haha.

But seriously, no I never saw it that way. As others have said, I think he was denouncing more of the attitude behind those things; and I always saw it as Lewis just describing how Eustace's parents lived and how they conducted their lives. The snootiness also seems to come from his parents, which is something Eustace has obviously lived with his whole life, which in turn leads to his behavior, which eventually is changed by an encounter with the Great Lion.

[Narborg]

I think that the thing about co ed school was writen in a context when most people in england would have gone to a single sex school, but he needed to bring a male a femle charachter, who were not related together. I think this is the main thing going on here, more than Lewis taking a dig ad co ed schols persay. And yes, I would agree with what has been said about it beening about the atatude, athogh it does should us the context in which he was writing in and how much has changed since his time.

[EveningStar]

I honestly think he was trying to paint a picture of Eustace Scrubb's family in a few words that would fit a certain "typecast" character of the day.

Think about this: Tie-died shirt, baggy bellbottom jeans, long hair, peace sign hanging around neck, using expressions like, "Far out, man." Quickly, what sort of music goes with this person: Classical, Polka, Big Band, or Rock? Well, Rock, of course. But isn't that stereotyping? Nonetheless we would expect it.

In literature characters are often introduced by a few strokes of literary paint. "She was tall, svelte, with a provocative red dress and legs that wouldn't stop. I knew that dame was trouble when she came into my office. "Mister Crosley," she purred in a tobacco-cured voice, "I need your help. Money is no object." You can fill in the rest...the pearl necklace, the long black cigarette holder, the fox fur stole, the red pillbox hat with the hint of a black fishnet veil, and the white gloves. And without saying it, you can see me in a trenchcoat, homburg, sitting there in half shadow with an old metal fan on my desk and a tray full of cigar butts. I didn't have to waste much time or reader attention to get the ball rolling. And that's the point.

I honestly think that's all Lewis was trying to do.

[Benisse]

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
C. S. Lewis

I think Lewis is satirizng the fact that people like Eustace's mum and dad can have strong convictions but be pretty hollow in terms of values.

[SweetWaters]

Thanks for all the answers! I think I understand this part of the books a little better now. It's good to have some historical context. :)

[Protagonist]

Now I don’t know about the whole “special kind of underclothes” thing,
He was talking about BBC cartoon characters who believe certain underpants bring them good luck.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

He was talking about BBC cartoon characters who believe certain underpants bring them good luck.Decades before television? Surely you jest. Some have speculated that that comment was a subtle dig at the Mormons, who do wear special underclothing, but that's very hard to substantiate. It's doubtful that Lewis knew much about the Mormons. I think it's just another thing tossed in there to underscore the faddish nature of Eustace's parents.

[Liz]

I’ve just been re-reading VDT, and I’ve noticed this time around that Lewis seems to be criticising a lot of things (in the characters of Eustace and his parents) that aren’t necessarily bad things.

In the very first page, for example.

“They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were vegetarians, non-smokers and teetotalers and wore a special kind of underclothes. In their house there was very little furniture and very few clothes on beds and the windows were always open.”

Now I don’t know about the whole “special kind of underclothes” thing, but I’m willing to bet there are a few people on this forum who are non-smokers and teetotalers (teetotalers = not drinking alcohol). Is Lewis simply bashing all “new ideas”? Might this be offensive to people who, for example, believe that drinking alcohol is a sin? And what about in SC, where he seems to be making fun of co-ed schools? What do you think his point was?

(Oh dear – I can just see Copperfox having a field day with this one. :rolleyes:)

When I read this in VofDT for the first time, I actually felt a little offended, since I don't smoke and drink very little alcohol.
I think many of you are right, though, in saying that C.S. Lewis doesn't mean these things are bad. If someone chooses not to drink, that's fine. What C.S. Lewis doesn't like, are people who tell everybody else what to do. As far as I remember he says something like that in "Mere Christianity"

[dawnpatrol]

“They were very up-to-date and advanced people. They were vegetarians, non-smokers and teetotalers and wore a special kind of underclothes. In their house there was very little furniture and very few clothes on beds and the windows were always open.”



Add 'rarely-bathed' and you've got liberals.

[pokemainiac]

[QUOTE=PrinceOfTheWest;1812972]Decades before television?QUOTE]

Actually, telivision arrived in the late 20s-early 30s and VDT was written in the early 50s.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It may have been invented, but broadcast television wasn't widespread until the 1950s and 1960s - and certainly not in England.